Standing Committee E

[Mr. Alan Hurst in the Chair]

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill

Clause 94 - Fee for work permit, &c.

9 am

Humfrey Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 299, in page 45, line 39, after 'fee', insert
'of no more than £150 per application'.

Alan Hurst: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 300, in page 45, line 40, at end insert
'but no fee shall be payable by non-profit organisations.'.
 No. 313, in page 46, line 7, at end insert 
'and shall make provision for exemption for non-profit organisations'.

Humfrey Malins: Since Labour took power in 1997, work permit regulations have been relaxed and simplified. That has had the dual effect of making it easier for employers to bring to the UK non-European economic area nationals, especially those in sectors with skill shortages, and of reducing the need for employers to seek legal assistance when making such applications. We welcomed those measures, as did various industry representative groups such as the Computing Services and Software Association and the Confederation of British Industry.
 With that background, we are slightly perplexed by the recommendation to charge employers who need to make work permit applications. It seems contrary to the Government's assumed aims for several reasons. First, there is a danger that high charges will discourage some small and medium-sized businesses that have a genuine requirement to employ individuals from non-EEA countries from going through the formalities involved in applying. That could damage the businesses that are then unable to fulfil skills requirements. It may also encourage some employers to employ people outside the regulations, for example on visit visas. That practice is already widespread. 
 The second possible consequence is that because of the increased risk associated with making work permit applications, employers may be more likely to resort to using legal professionals to make the applications, thereby increasing costs again. That will give a major advantage to companies that have in-house legal departments, and will needlessly discourage companies with smaller profit margins and turnovers. 
 We are not blind to the possible benefits of introducing fees. It is estimated in the Bill that fees for the expected 175,000 applications next year will raise about £15.8 million, which will reduce the burden on the taxpayer. However, we are concerned about proposals to move that £15 million burden on to the shoulders of employers, who are already having to pay increased national insurance contributions. Another 
 possible benefit could be to discourage applications that are either fraudulent or likely to fail, but that might not happen. At the moment, among the worst offenders in the fraudulent use of work permits are recruitment agencies that masquerade as employers and body shop people to the UK. Introducing charges would have little or no effect on dissuading them from continuing, as the mark-up that they get from body shopping is so high that a fee would not be noticed. They will just pass the fee on to their unwitting candidates, as is often the case with legal fees. 
 Our final concern is about the Secretary of State's discretion to make an exception in certain applications. The aim is to raise £15.8 million through the scheme, and it estimated that there will be 175,000 applications next year, but we do not know whether all employers will share the burden equally. The Home Secretary may be considering excluding the health care and teaching sectors from the charges, so what level of charges should we expect for the other sectors? If the Secretary of State decides to exclude other industries as time goes on, how will that affect the companies that need to make extension applications? If the Secretary of State does not intend to exclude those sectors from charges, is it a good use of resources to be spending time moving entire funds from one branch of government to another? 
 However, as industry and skills requirements change, we do not oppose the provision to enable the Secretary of State to use his discretion on such matters, and we want to avoid yet another new Bill being presented in just a few years time. I urge the Secretary of State to consult widely on the issue, and recommend that he considers excluding from these charges small businesses with perhaps fewer than 20 employees, or with a turnover of less than £1 million. He may also want to consider making the first five or 10 applications in a 12-month period free of charge. We therefore propose that the charges do not exceed £150, so as not to put a massive burden on small and medium-sized enterprises. That figure is significantly lower than that of the United States or France. However, the Republic of Ireland and Germany followed our lead in relaxing work permit regulations, from which they have greatly benefited. They have not felt the need to introduce fees. We support the introduction of fees with some misgivings, but believe that the burden on business will not be too great if a maximum fee is introduced at this stage and if there is consultation on the other points raised. 
 Amendment No. 300 would insert: 
''but no fee shall be payable by non-profit organisations.''
 Several non-governmental organisations have expressed strong support for that proposal. The Immigration Law Practitioners Association in particular believes that a distinction needs to be made between profit-making and non-profit-making organisations on the fees charged for work permits.

Simon Hughes: Good morning. It is a delight to be back with the Committee. I know how much everyone missed me on Tuesday. My hon. Friend the Member
 for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) will return soon, and the full complement will be back in harness.
 I endorse everything that the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) said on the amendments, which have our support as hon. Members will see from the amendment paper. When the Government consult on fees, they should consider the point that there should be no additional penalty for recruiting for the public services, and possibly for the charitable and voluntary sectors. There are various add-on penalties, not least due to the recent Budget changes to national insurance and to housing costs in areas of high housing demand. Anything that discourages public services, especially the health and education sectors, from bringing people in to work in their area should be avoided. I hope that the Government will make a clear policy statement about that. 
 What breadth of people do the Government envisage will be covered by the clause? There has been a welcome policy change from including only those people who are highly qualified to including those who may not technically be as widely qualified, but whom the labour market needs. We must be careful to avoid significant fees for work permits. We need many people to do jobs which, to be honest, are not at the most highly paid end of the market. Work permits greatly discourage them and those who act on their behalf. 
 I want to reinforce the point made by the hon. Gentleman, and add that we are all aware that the labour market contains good and bad practitioners. Many of the bad practitioners find any excuse for add-on costs, so we should be careful not to give them that opportunity. That is why an upper limit for the fees would be appropriate. I share the hon. Gentleman's view that there should be a provision for fees in secondary legislation, because of the flexible labour market. The method of charging may need to be varied, depending on how the market responds. 
 If, having advertised a specific job in this country, an employer cannot get anyone to do it, he is allowed to employ non-EC nationals, who are taken on for four years as a condition of their employment. They are expected to go home at the end of that period unless they can satisfy the requirement that no one else in the market is capable of doing the job. Can the Minister tell the Committee and those outside with an interest in the matter what the Government expect to be the normal initial period of permission, what period the fee will cover and what will be the criteria for renewal? 
 I can give the example of Australian constituent who was employed in docklands to do specific computer work. At the end of his four years he had become hugely valuable to his company. It is nonsense for that company to have to go through the process of re-advertising and to take someone on from scratch, and it is a penalty on industry. People who have established their validity and value must be allowed to continue in employment. It would be helpful if the Minister could state the Government's policy in that respect.

Rosie Winterton: As hon. Gentlemen said, the purpose of the clause is to enable the Home Office to charge employers a fee when considering applications for work permits. That will focus the cost on those who benefit from the service. The work permit arrangements are used by a relatively small number of businesses, but the burden of operating the scheme is borne by all UK taxpayers and businesses. Introducing a fee for the work permit would mean that the users of the service pay for it. UK businesses tell us that the speed of our service is an important advantage to them when compared with the service to businesses elsewhere. Expanding the use of the work permit criteria places an ever-increasing burden on the general taxpayer, and stretches the resources of Work Permits (UK) so much that service levels are difficult to maintain. Charging for the service will help to maintain our present world-leading service. The change will bring us into line with other western countries; our turn-around times compare favourably with other countries, such as Canada and the United States, which already charge. They take from three to six months to consider cases.
 Applications for work permits have increased from 70,000 in 1999–2000 to an estimated 135,000 in 2001–02. Despite that increase, the standard of service provided by Work Permits (UK) is exceptionally high. Almost 90 per cent of completed applications are considered within one day of receipt.

Simon Hughes: If the Minister has the information with her, it would be interesting to know which nationalities are at the top of the league table. If not, will she let us have a breakdown of applicants for work permits by nationality?

Rosie Winterton: The top two nationalities applying for work permits are American, at 25 per cent, and Indian, at 23 per cent.
 Concerns were raised about the effect on small businesses. The charge will be between £75 and £95 per application, which is marginal compared with the cost of recruiting people overseas. It is paid by everyone through tax. This measure will focus the charge on those who benefit from the service.

Humfrey Malins: It is helpful to have an indication of the figure, but will the Minister consult widely on what should happen to charitable and non-profit making organisations?

Rosie Winterton: I am coming to that. The consultation process began on 15 April. We are examining its findings, and considering a sliding scale for certain types of applications. In the consultation document, we asked whether customers would prefer a flat-rate fee or a sliding scale. Due, I believe, to the likely added expense of a more bureaucratic system, the early indications are that most people would favour a flat rate. We believe that that is the way to proceed, but we are awaiting the results of the consultation before drawing conclusions.
 We do not intend to charge the NHS and publicly-funded schools directly, but we may consider suitable 
 accounting arrangements. Hon. Members made a number of points about poor advice and practice from recruitment agencies. Clause 95 brings advice agencies under the regulation of the office of the Immigration Services Commissioner, so that we can avoid some of the problems that were mentioned. 
 The length of the permits will depend on the needs of particular jobs. The minimum is six months and the maximum five years, but extensions will be available beyond that period, particularly if someone demonstrates added value. Illegal working was mentioned, and there are measures in the Bill to try to tackle that. On the breadth of people covered, the work permits are obtainable only for medium to high-skilled workers—those at national vocational qualification level 3 and above. The measure also covers the new high-skilled migrant programme. 
 The fees will be set in line with Treasury guidance. It is important that fees are designed to ensure that the full economic cost of providing the service is recovered. Imposing an arbitrary cap on fee levels would be inappropriate. However, we envisage that, in the first year and the following two to three years, the figure will be significantly less than £150. 
 The fee will be set out in a statutory instrument subject to a negative resolution, but hon. Members will have an opportunity to object to the fee if they feel that it has become excessive. Setting out fee levels in a statutory instrument as opposed to primary legislation will provide much more flexibility, and will facilitate the efficient adjustment of fee levels if necessary. 
 On amendments Nos. 300 and 313, before the outcome of the ongoing consultation, which will be completed by 5 July, we will not propose any exemptions to the charge except prospective employers of people from countries that have signed and ratified the Council of Europe charter and the revised European social charter. Those countries account for about 5 per cent. of all work permit applications received, but we do not want to pre-empt the outcome of the consultation, as I hope hon. Members will understand. We are consulting a large number and wide range of employers, including charities and non-profit organisations.

Simon Hughes: Will the Minister ensure that the results of the consultation, particularly from the NHS, local education authorities and others that fulfil public service functions, are published in plenty of time before any decisions are taken, and that Parliament agrees the regulations? It is important that we see the results of the consultation, so that we know the views of such bodies.

Rosie Winterton: Yes, those results will be published. If the consultation provides suitable evidence that we should consider exempting non-profit organisations, we will have to be clear on what organisations that category includes. We must take that into account, otherwise some organisations that people feel should be included may be excluded. We are reflecting further on the problem. The statutory instrument must clearly define which non-profit organisations will be covered by any exemption. If we conclude that such organisations should not be exempted at this stage,
 the provisions will still allow us to introduce exemptions if necessary later. The regulations will be passed by a negative resolution, which provides an opportunity for hon. Members to object.
 I hope that that explains the position and provides some reassurance about the Government's intentions. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will therefore withdraw the amendment.

Simon Hughes: That was a helpful response, but I have one quick question for the Minister to clarify. She implied that the charge would be less than the cost of administering the scheme. Is the idea to make the scheme self-financing by covering all the administrative costs? Is that Government policy, or will the taxpayer be expected to subsidise parts of the scheme?

Rosie Winterton: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I referred to the Treasury guidance, which is designed to limit fees within any cost structure to ensure that only the full economic cost of providing the service in question is recovered.

Humfrey Malins: This has been a useful debate, in which we have fulfilled the Opposition's function of teasing out from the Government some helpful additional material, and I am grateful to the Minister for providing it. It will be read with great interest by the many businesses that take a deep interest in these matters. I thank the Minister again for her good answers, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Humfrey Malins: I should like to raise another matter. The office of the Immigration Services Commissioner was created under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to regulate immigration advisers who did not fall under the jurisdiction of the Law Society or other regulatory bodies. Up to now it has not been clear whether work permits fall under the jurisdiction of the office of the Immigration Services Commissioner, partly because permits were previously issued by the former Department for Education and Employment rather than the Home Office, and partly because they did not constitute leave to enter or remain. We would welcome some clarification.
 The Bill makes it clear that providing advice on work permit applications that are not exempt by some other condition will be regulated by the office of the Immigration Services Commissioner. However, some people are worried that the Bill's wording is too restrictive. Many larger companies have in-house teams to deal with work permit applications, as exemplified by WIPRO, an Indian software house, Merrill Lynch, Intel and PricewaterhouseCoopers. Such companies have no need to seek external legal advice. 
 Concern has been expressed that, under the current wording, it may appear that anyone providing such advice or making such applications will need to register with the office of the Immigration Service Commissioner, when even level 1 OISC registration 
 requires knowledge or information that has no relevance to work permit applications. It is felt by some people that that is unnecessary. Would the Minister at some stage consider whether the Bill should be altered to make it clear that in-house advisers will be exempt from that requirement?

Simon Hughes: After the general election the Government made the helpful announcement that they realised that we needed to look at our immigration policy again to allow people in whom we need for the labour market. They initially stated that people with particular skills and qualifications would be encouraged and a number would be assessed. After the White Paper they realised that a greater breadth of people was needed, not just those with qualifications. I gave the example that we need people to clean floors in public sector buildings or to wash cars just as much as we need doctors, nurses and highly qualified scientific workers. What sort of numbers do the Government expect will come via the work permit route? More than 100,000 a year come at present and the numbers might be significantly higher.
 What is the Government's plan for the link between a work permit and more settled status should a person's employability make that logical? They might be given extended leave to remain in the first place and then indefinite leave to remain. I was speaking yesterday to a refugee from Iraq who is a surgeon and a specialist in renal medicine. He and his family have extended leave to remain. He is getting qualifications to practise here. If people in their late 40s come in via the work permit route with family and dependants and take the exams to work in the health service they will want to know that they can have a settled career. They could concentrate on giving themselves to the health service where there skills would be very valuable and not risk the possibility of having to return in their early 50s with all the difficulties that that would entail. This is not a trick question. I am just trying to get an idea of how we can have joined up government between the work permit and the immigration application routes for those with skills. 
 At recurrent problem that comes my way as a constituency MP is the difficulty of getting agreements in time for people who have come over on two-year work and travel visas. They often come from the old Commonwealth countries such as Australia and New Zealand and end up teaching in schools where they are valuable. Head teachers have come to me on several occasions about problems with deadlines. I just flag up for the Home Office and other Departments that we need a system that keeps up the general high standard of speed in dealing with cases where there needs to be certainty and where technically there is a change of status because the work travel visa cannot be extended beyond two years. 
 If people stayed on to teach in primary schools, for example, they would need a work permit extension of a different nature. Such attempts have occasionally 
 run up against the buffers and some good teachers have been lost from schools where they have settled and of which they have become an established part. The Minister may deal with that now, but if not, I am happy for her to deal with it later. I flag up the issue of that useful source of teachers in areas of teacher shortage, especially in schools.

Rosie Winterton: I shall deal first with the point made by the hon. Member for Woking, on which I can reassure him. He is referring to clause 95. Employers who provide immigration advice or services free of charge to employees are exempted from the regulatory scheme until the end of the year. Amending and extending that exemption is an option and we will review it with the Immigration Services Commissioner and Work Permits (UK) before clause 95 is implemented.
 On the points raised by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), there has been a great effort to look at areas of shortage. He will know of such initiatives as the highly skilled migrants programme. He referred to other areas of shortage. We are looking particularly at the seasonal agricultural workers scheme and the working holidaymakers scheme, which are under joint review by Work Permits (UK) and other policy colleagues in the Home Office. Work is also in progress developing new schemes sector by sector to cover shortages. No target numbers have yet been agreed. 
 As I explained earlier, extensions of work permits are available, particularly if someone has demonstrated that they have added value. The hon. Gentleman raised a point about refugees. Work conversion courses are in place so that we can move quickly to ensure that refugees with particular skills can take up employment.

Simon Hughes: I shall write to Ministers about some of the practical difficulties that the doctor to whom I referred earlier raised about gaining access to the information. I found his points helpful in demonstrating the difficulty of finding out where one should go and whom one should speak to.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that that will be extremely helpful. It is important to know people's direct experiences in such cases, because if we are to make the schemes successful, we need to know where people encounter genuine difficulties. I am sure that my Home Office colleagues have noted the hon. Gentleman's points about teaching and the two-year issue.
 I hope that that further information is helpful, and I commend clause 94 to the Committee. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 94 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 95 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 96 - Authority to carry

Gregory Barker: I beg to move amendment No. 301, in page 47, line 10, leave out 'nationality'.
 I rise on this beautiful morning to speak briefly on this gentle and probing amendment. The terms of clause 96 have been queried by a leading and much-respected NGO and although the amendment is gentle, it touches on an important point of principle and is designed to see how far the Government intend to use the clause to discriminate against incoming passengers. As the Minister will know, under new section 19B in the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, it is not always unlawful for a relevant person, which includes necessary public authorities, to discriminate against another person on grounds of nationality or of ethnic or national origins in carrying out immigration and nationality functions. Nevertheless, it is still somewhat worrying that a ministerial order under the Act can authorise racial discrimination, which has obviously been done for immigration officials. 
 Will the Minister assure us that it will still be unlawful for a carrier to discriminate against passengers under the 2000 Act? The clause seems to authorise something that is unlawful. Although I accept that the legislation is intended to create a more efficient, faster and fairer system, do the Government intend to extend the existing law on discrimination? Will the Minister assure us that there is no intention to extend the practice of lawful racial discrimination through the implementation of clause 96?

Simon Hughes: I will speak not only because we jointly sponsored the amendment but because I remember the debates that we had during the Committee consideration of the Race Relation (Amendment) Bill on this and related issues. I, too, am confused, and I follow the promptings of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker) on the amendment.
 Although it was controversial at the time, the Government insisted that they exempted people performing certain functions in the immigration and nationality directorate from some of the race relations legislation. The justification was that it might be necessary, for example, to stop and search all Bosnians as a group, even though there would be no reason for thinking that they might be terrorists or that they were acting illegally other than information that suggested that there was an issue. I understood the argument, although I did not agree with it and tried to amend the legislation. 
 We examined the issue earlier when it came up in clauses 6 and 7. We agreed to clause 6, which changes the 2000 Act and limits the exemptions for people performing Home Office functions. That was welcome. I, too, am concerned to discover how far the Government intend to use the clause to discriminate against passengers. The clause provides for a ministerial order in secondary legislation to authorise continuing discrimination on racial grounds. That should trouble us, and I thought that we had agreed to get rid of that. 
 The hon. Gentleman asked if the clause allows a carrier to make such a distinction. If so, that would be invidious. A carrier flying from South Africa to the 
 United Kingdom could decide not to allow any Angolans on the plane. That is a thoroughly unacceptable position, and would be a possible risk under subsection (3) if it retained the word ''nationality''. I am conscious that we have not yet seen the draft regulations, and are in the dark as usual. 
 Subsection (3) states: 
''An authority-to-carry scheme must specify— 
 (a) the class of carrier to which it applies . . . ''
 and 
''(b) the class of passenger to which it applies (which may be defined by reference to nationality''.
 It then refers to 
''the possession of specified documents''.
 I understand the argument that certain documents, for example a visa, are needed to get on a plane. That may be acceptable, but whatever Ministers intend in subsequent regulations, the subsection appears to suggest that certain nationalities will have to act in certain ways. I imagine that the only justification for that is that a UK national or a British overseas citizen could be treated differently. I could understand it if the subsection meant that a carrier is entitled to differentiate between UK nationals or, at a pinch, UK and European Union nationals, and others, because there is a different rule for moving around Europe. 
 It would be helpful if the Minister could provide an explanation, as there is considerable concern inside and outside the Committee that the provision harks back to an unacceptable provision in the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.

Angela Eagle: I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentlemen that the provision is not as they see it.
 I hope that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle enjoyed moving his first amendment. He has had a sudden promotion. Goodness knows where it might end. 
 The hon. Gentleman for Southwark, North and Bermondsey correctly said that new section 19D in the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 allowed discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity and nationality. However, he did not say that for the first time the Act brought the immigration and nationality directorate within the purview of race discrimination legislation, from which it was completely exempted in 1996. There can be no discrimination on the grounds of race or colour without falling foul of the Act. So he was wrong when he said that the IND could discriminate on racial grounds, although it can discriminate on the grounds of nationality. 
 I would be interested if hon. Gentlemen could tell me how they would run an effective immigration service without the power to discriminate on the grounds of nationality in some circumstances. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey rightly pointed out—I thank him for his acknowledgement—we have narrowed further the exemptions in clause 6. However, with proper ministerial oversight and reports to Parliament, the 
 potential to discriminate on grounds of nationality for operational and practical reasons is necessary in some circumstances. We will continue to narrow the exemptions if the operation of the system proves that we can safely do so. 
 Clause 96 talks about the development of authority to carry schemes. We may discuss this matter in debating whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. The provision is not intended to allow carriers to discriminate. Prior to passengers boarding a plane, there will be an electronic check to see whether any known immigration offenders or security risks—often those on the warnings index used at ports of entry—are among them. After an electronic exchange of information the airline will be granted or refused permission to carry. It will be given a yes or a no answer for an individual. 
 This is merely a way for passengers to know that they will not be stopped at immigration for reasons of immigration or security and be turned back once they have travelled. They will know that they have authority to travel, and although the measure does not replace immigration control, there will be a faster way through it once they arrive at the port. 
 The carrier will not discriminate; it will act on information from Home Office databases that will either grant or not grant authority to carry. This will prevent airlines becoming liable to fines by carrying improperly documented people. It will give passengers authorised to travel before boarding the aircraft more secure knowledge that they will not be considered either an immigration threat or a security risk when they arrive. We see it as beneficial all round. In a nutshell, that is how we see authority to carry schemes being developed. They are at an early stage at present. 
 We would not give permission to an airline to discriminate against all Angolans unless all Angolans were on the warning index as immigration offenders or threats to national security, which is highly unlikely.

Simon Hughes: I shall reserve comment on the scheme for the clause stand part debate. Although that explanation was helpful there are still some issues about authority to carry.
 The Minister was right to correct me on the use of the term ''racial grounds''. I remember that discrimination was permitted on nationality grounds, not racial grounds. I accept her remarks on the benefits of the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill—that is why my party supported it strongly and tabled amendments to increase its breadth in the House of Lords. It brought the public sector, including the Home Office, the police and IND, within the remit of race relations legislation. 
 I have not had an answer about how the provision may lend itself to discrimination. I would put the question differently. People from the UK will inevitably be treated differently from those in the EU and people in the EU will be treated differently from those outside it. Different entitlements apply that are consequential on different nationalities. Outside the EU, inhabitants of British overseas dependent 
 territories are another group with special rights. Apart from that, and apart from Ireland and the old European Free Trade Association, which has common travel areas—conferring certain travel rights from Switzerland, for example, which would not apply elsewhere—everyone is in the same boat and has to enter via the non-UK, non-EC channel. 
 How can it be justified for IND, or an authority to carry scheme that delegates to airline X, to discriminate against an entire nationality? I understand that people who are a security risk—perhaps from Afghanistan last year—should be prevented from entering, but that should not apply to everyone with an Afghan passport. How can a justification on grounds of nationality not be discriminatory and open to challenge as such in international law under the relevant conventions? Under what circumstances might an authority to carry scheme incorporate definitions that referred to nationality and prevented Bulgarians, Angolans or Chileans from entering the UK? I do not understand how that could be justified.

Angela Eagle: I am not sure that authority to carry schemes will work in that way. We have 90 million visitors through our ports in the UK, and unless the hon. Gentleman wishes us to treat every single person the same—huge queues lasting for hours would result—we have to carry out our work with reference to risk analysis and intelligence. Sometimes intelligence about an offence to forge particular passports or about difficulties in particular parts of the world might mean concentrating our efforts more on people of a certain nationality. Forgers might be seeking to evade our immigration controls.
 In certain circumstances, intelligence about people arriving from a different airport or about a particular nationality's passports will require us to check some people more effectively and more closely than others. If we could not discriminate on grounds of nationality at all, we would have to treat everyone in exactly the same way when carrying out close checks. As I said, that would lead to huge queues for everybody and create chaos in the airports. 
 When we authorise discrimination against particular nationalities—often because we have intelligence about scams or have detected that people of a specific nationality have forged documents, leading us to suspect an organised attempt to breach immigration rules—it is to enable us to pay more attention to passengers of that nationality when they arrive in the country. Authority to discriminate on grounds of nationality comes into effect to make it practical to act against such threats without having to apply the same close scrutiny to everyone. In immigration operations, that is to some extent inevitable. 
 I re-emphasise, however, that we cannot and will not discriminate on the grounds of race or colour. Clearly, that would be illegal, but an authority to travel regime is no more discriminatory than a visa regime. The immigration and nationality directorate must target high-risk passengers, and it must bring the reasons before Ministers if it wishes to add a nationality to the list for particular attention. That is 
 open to public and parliamentary scrutiny, as the hon. Gentleman knows from his time on the Committee that considered the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill. 
 The system is open and above board, but I ask the hon. Gentleman to recognise that, because of the nature of the IND's work, there must be risk analyses, which often focus, inevitably, on particular nationalities at particular times. However, with the extensions in the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, we have embedded the principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of race or colour. That is a major advantage and a major advance on the position post-1976.

Simon Hughes: I repeat that the principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of race or colour is welcome and good; the Minister's affirmation of that is right. However, I will, if I may, talk the issue through with a Minister outside the Committee, because I do not wish to take up the Committee's time and I still have concerns.
 I shall give one example. Recently, there has been much discussion with the Jamaican Government about ensuring that there is a better system for stopping drugs from Jamaica coming here. I know that Ministers from Jamaica have been here and there have been press reports about particular flights being checked and high numbers of people being involved, but I would still find it discriminatory if, for a year, for example, every Jamaican citizen who wished to come to the UK to visit friends and family were subject to an entirely different regime. I am talking about a non-visa country, which is why this is an issue. 
 I seek clarification on one matter. I presume that it would not be lawful, even under the authority to carry scheme and whatever the merits of the case, for the Government suddenly to say that there was a particular regime for the Portuguese, for example. I presume that, under the common travel and freedom of movement arrangements, such a regime would be in breach of EU treaties and that the EU must be exempt from the provisions, but it would be helpful to know that.

Angela Eagle: EU citizens have the freedom to travel and reside in any other EU country. The idea of a visa regime for Spaniards, for example, would be nonsense because of international agreements. However, the logical conclusion of what the hon. Gentleman says is that visa regimes are discriminatory. He is saying that it is somehow reasonable to have a visa regime, which is discriminatory, but that we should not be able to use intelligence to focus on criminals, many of whom have committed serious crimes, who attempt to subvert our immigration controls for various nefarious reasons that he will see manifested on the streets of Southwark and Bermondsey and many other areas in the UK.
 I do not understand the difference between imposing a visa regime on a nationality for all time, and discriminating on the ground of nationality for a period if it can be proved to Ministers that there is an operational reason for paying particular attention to that nationality for a time. I think that discriminating 
 for a short period on the ground of nationality might be a far better way of dealing with a perceived problem than imposing a visa regime, but the hon. Gentleman may have a different opinion. The nature of immigration control is such that we have to act in that way in certain circumstances. Our arrangements allow us to be open and transparent, and are more flexible than a visa regime. I hope that he understands what I am saying. We clearly disagree, but how could sensible, taut immigration control be maintained if no discrimination was allowed on grounds of nationality? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will think about that question before he has a word with anyone outside the Committee. There are no current plans, and no decision has been taken, on whether to impose a visa regime on Jamaica, although clearly there are difficulties with organised crime and drugs.

Gregory Barker: This is a delicate issue, on which an important point of principle is at stake. It is right for the Committee, and Parliament, to probe and scrutinise any clause or amendment that touches on the matter, and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey made some important points.
 I am pleased that the Minister has addressed the issue with such clarity. I accept that as 90 million visitors come into the country each year we must be realistic. We do not have an open border and if, in the Minister's words, we want a ''sensible and taut'' system, the regime must ensure that that is the case. I hope that the authority to travel regime will reduce the queues at Heathrow. Nothing does more to fuel prejudice, suspicion and concern than arriving at Heathrow from an international flight and seeing people from the EU breezing past passport control while huge numbers of people from third world countries have to queue for hours. That looks like open discrimination of the worst kind. 
 Screening more people before they come into the country will help to reduce the time that welcome visitors to the United Kingdom have to wait at passport control. Screening will be welcome, too, if it prevents more undesirable people—criminals and so on—from entering the country. I hope that the authority to travel regime will work, although we will check closely that the ability to discriminate is not passed on to the carriers who bring people here. We shall watch carefully to ensure that there is no discrimination on grounds of race or colour. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Simon Hughes: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle on successfully straddling the positions of Back Bencher and Front Bencher in making his first, early bid for notice and preferment. The hon. Member for Woking is always good at encouraging the next generation and bringing on talent.
 The Minister posed the right question: when we want to control people coming here, should we have a visa regime or another regime? The proposal is for an authority to carry regime, although I would prefer a 
 visa regime. I accept that there would then be discrimination, but a visa regime has many safeguards that an authority to carry regime does not have. A flexible visa regime stating reasons for requiring people from country X, Y or Z to have a visa is far more legally justifiable, for many reasons. I am unhappy about authority to carry systems, so I accept that there must be a visa system and that is how to discriminate if, for a particular reason, control is required in respect of a certain country. 
 The Minister knows that many well-informed and respected organisations that work in this field share my concerns. There may soon be a legal challenge to such operations in Prague by officials, including officials from the Home Office, working with the carriers. That scheme is not a visa regime but a screening process, aimed particularly at screening people from the Roma and other communities from eastern Europe.

Angela Eagle: Would the hon. Gentleman have similar objections to our pre-checks at Coquelles to stop people who do not possess proper documents getting on the channel tunnel train as passengers? Such checks have been highly successful in preventing clandestines from coming through illegally on the trains by that route.

Simon Hughes: My understanding is that the arrangements in France are the subject of international agreements between Britain and France that allow British officials to work on the other side of the frontier, and are therefore negotiable, subject to parliamentary scrutiny and agreement. That does not happen to treaties, but it should. No treaty should be in the patronage and prerogative of the Prime Minister. The Minister knows that I have an entirely different view about how we should treat people arriving in northern France—neither we nor the French handle the situation correctly. I have made proposals to the Home Secretary and others about how we should handle it. As I said, there may well be an imminent challenge in the Court of Human Rights to the practice in Prague, which is believed by people such as the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants to be discriminatory towards certain ethnic groups, and in particular the Roma community. The scheme is carried out on the basis of ethnicity, not nationality.
 I expect the Minister knows that the Immigration Law Practitioners Association is entirely unhappy with the authority to carry scheme. I—and others, I believe—object to it for two fundamental reasons. First, whatever technical links exist, it transfers responsibility for deciding who can be carried from Government to commercial and other agencies. It would be the airline that would tell someone that he or she could not travel on a flight at the point of embarkation. An individual from, say, the Czech Republic, who did not require a visa, who was coming to the UK to visit family, arrives at the airport, having booked a flight and made arrangements, could be turned away, not necessarily by British immigration officials—although it could be by Home Office 
 officials—but possibly by an airline official or an official in the country of departure. The Angolan that I talked about earlier was turned away by an airline official in South Africa, for example. The scheme could remove the decision-making power from IND.

Angela Eagle: No.

Simon Hughes: The Minister says no, but I will let her deal with the issue. If I am wrong, the implication is that the decision will in all cases be taken by IND staff, who would be at all the places where the authority to carry scheme operates.
 My second objection to the scheme is that it has none of the safeguards of a visa and immigration system. If I turn up for my flight and hand in my passport and ticket and the technical system flashes up a message that I am not to be allowed on, what remedy and redress do I have? I would have a wasted ticket and have forfeited my holiday. I would have none of the constitutional safeguards, such as appeal mechanisms, that exist if I apply for a visa and do not get it. There should be careful control of who holds information that may form the basis of a refusal to travel. What guarantees exist about who will have it? Could someone who had just started working that day for the airline have that information? 
 I could present myself at the airport, for example, where someone on the desk gets a message flashing up saying, ''Simon Hughes is an unacceptable visitor''. That person could record that, even though they are an employee of a commercial company, not an official. That is prejudicial in many ways. Who else gets that information? Does the rest of the company get it? How is it controlled within the company? Can the company pass it on to its travel agents? Many questions about the information prevent someone from travelling. 
 Furthermore, how can I find out the basis of the information that prevents me from travelling? If it is inaccurate, how can I challenge it, and can I challenge it in time to be allowed on the flight that I booked and paid for? If I cannot challenge it in time and am not allowed to get on the flight, for example to go to a family wedding, how can I ensure that I get compensation for being wrongly turned away? None of those questions have been answered. An entirely arbitrary system is being imposed with no right of appeal and no guarantee that people will be allowed to know what information is held against them. 
 The Minister will clearly disagree with some of those arguments, and I am open to persuasion that the system will be transparent, administered entirely in the public sector, open to scrutiny and allow full redress. If I am right about that, I will be happy to hear it. However, if we are to have controls, they should be introduced by Government through legislation, exercised by Government officials and include rights of appeal. I do not find the clause a satisfactory alternative.

Humfrey Malins: The authority to carry scheme is intriguing and important, but I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the problems of carriers coming into the UK from France via the rail system.
 The Minister will know that Eurotunnel is the main concessionaire, but it has two contractors: Eurostar and the English, Welsh and Scottish Railway. Eurostar itself has three parts—Eurostar UK Ltd, the French railway SNCF and the Belgian railway SNCB—and I had an interesting meeting with officials some weeks ago at which I found out that the trains change ownership as they move. Starting from Paris they are owned and operated by SNCF and miraculously change to Eurostar UK halfway through the journey. I must say that I did not notice the change when I last took a Eurostar train. 
 As the Minister may know, there may be some difficulties with authority to carry for those different concessionaires. However, I give the Government three cheers for some of the work that they have done in the past few months. It was only last November that the French legislated that passengers using an international service with a domestic leg—Paris to UK via Calais, for example—would have to submit to UK entry controls at Paris. I believe that the law came into force sometime in February, which was a good effort, and the Government's work with the French deserves congratulation. It encourages the process, which I have always thought was a good one, of placing our immigration controls outside our borders, so that any problems can be anticipated and addressed. 
 However, there is an outstanding problem, and I hope that it can be dealt with under the authority to carry scheme. It concerns two particular rail trips. The first is the ski train to and from Bourg St. Maurice, which comes in twice a week. I do not want to stray too far, but I advise Committee members not to take that train. I took it in the company of 28 friends and expected to have a nice bed to sleep on, but it was no different from the 7.54 from Dorking to London. I had the option of either drinking myself to sleep or staying sober and awake all night. I did the journey both ways, so I tried both methods, and neither was remotely successful. More importantly, the train is direct, and after one has purchased a ticket, there is a Schengen exit check but no UK check. That problem must be addressed, as must the Disney train, which, mercifully, I have not been on. 
 Apparently there are no plans to have UK immigration controls at Brussels. One can buy a ticket and then have a full check by the Belgian police, which is like a Schengen check. However, there is no UK check. As the Brussels train stops at Lille, one can purchase a single to Lille and stay on the train until it gets to England. That is a problem. I do not know whether the authority to carry scheme will cover that nor whether I will make that extraordinary journey again in the near future. The Minister and her officials should be congratulated on a lot of good work with the French, but they will need to recognise that the authority-to-carry scheme may need to be scratched around a little to cover some of those loopholes.

Angela Eagle: I hope that I will be able to calm the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey down somewhat before I talk about the prospect of immigration officers having control posts at Disney. I suspect that that would be a popular duty. I am
 astonished that he thinks that the visa regime is a more acceptable way of achieving control at immigration in all circumstances than authority to travel. The first thing to say about a visa regime is that it affects everyone. People from countries that come within the visa regime must apply for and be granted a visa before they can travel at all. The authority to travel schemes would be entirely different. None yet exists in the form that the clause would allow. Carriers' liability means that airlines try to check that the passengers who are embarking have the necessary paperwork to get through immigration at their destination and not be sent back, thus making the carrier liable for a fine. It is in everyone's interests that the certainty of being able to get through immigration control is there.
 Under authority to travel schemes there will be an electronic check to see whether anyone on a passenger manifest comes up on our warnings index. We will prevent known immigration offenders or people who have been deported before from travelling to the UK. We also have lists of lost and falsified passport numbers, and we could pick up someone who was using a lost passport or a forgery. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been to Heathrow to see some of the fantastically artistic forgeries that have been discovered by immigration officers. They are highly sophisticated. 
 Our warnings index will flag up lost passports. As soon as such a passport is presented when boarding, the warning will flash and the individual will be taken aside. Authority to travel will simply tell the airline that someone is travelling on false documents or a falsified visa that has been notified to the system, or is a previous immigration offender who was deported and does not have permission to come back. They will be turned back at the boarding gate and not carried. The final decision, if that passenger arrives at immigration control, will be taken by an immigration officer, looking at the same information. 
 The system simply makes the information available, but it will not supply a list of individuals or passports to private companies. They will feed in a passenger manifest with names and passport numbers, and electronic searches will be carried out relating to information that we already know. Individuals may fail the search because they are on the warnings index or using false visas about which we have been notified. The airline will return a list of passenger names with yes or no attached—no information about why, just yes or no. If the answer is no, the person will be stopped and immediately turned back before boarding: he will not be allowed to enter the country. 
 It is in everyone's interest to develop authority to travel regimes to make the information available regarding flights. In time, other schemes could be developed for trains or at other ports of entry. Having such schemes in operation for flights saves the airline from being fined, saves the individual from a wasted journey and an immediate sending back and ensures that the warnings index is applied before people reach immigration control. If they reach immigration control, they will be picked up and turned back there: an immigration officer will take that decision. Having authority to travel does not mean that people 
 can enter the country without going through immigration control. 
 The focused use of information that we already have about false passport numbers and known immigration offenders who have already been deported will ensure that the people concerned do not re-enter the country—or even try to—illegally. It is much less trouble than imposing a visa regime on every person of a particular nationality, most of whom are completely innocent of immigration offences, are no threat to national security and are not the subject of EU or UN travel bans or other warnings index stipulations. It is so much more sensible than imposing a visa regime on the former Yugoslavia, for example, simply because we do not want Mr. Milosevic to turn up at Gatwick.

Simon Hughes: I understand the answer, but I disagree profoundly with the analysis. What remedy is available to me if, having bought my ticket and made my holiday arrangements in Johannesburg, I am turned away by the airline? If I fly here and British immigration officials tell me that I cannot enter the country, remedies are available. I can challenge the ruling through the courts, for example. I cannot do so, however, if the airline is responsible for the decision. What happens if the information is inaccurate or flawed, perhaps because of a computer error? The other day, Southwark council prevented me from voting on account of computer error.

Angela Eagle: If authority to travel were refused, an individual could make an application to apply for a visa. Someone with a visa would not be refused authority to travel unless we had information that the visa in question was false. The warnings index does not pick up innocents—

Simon Hughes: It makes mistakes.

Angela Eagle: Let us assume that it makes mistakes. It operates day in, day out at Heathrow and Gatwick, and it contains the names of people whom the immigration service, for various reasons, would examine carefully. In the vast majority of cases, mistakes will not be made. If they are, individuals will not be able to travel that day. They could go to the relevant embassy—we would not supply reasons to the commercial companies—to establish the reason for refusal. Appeals will be possible, though they will not apply on the day of refusal, and travel will be prevented. Without the authority to travel arrangements, the individual would have come all the way to Britain, been refused entry and been forced to go back. In that instance, reasons for refusal would have to be acquired from the British mission or embassy, and the same appeal rights would apply.
 I am always nervous about saying so, but I am confident that large numbers of mistakes will not be made. The warnings index lists immigration offenders and threats to national security, and works well. There are also lists of lost passports with numbers to check to see whether someone is using them. Such information would draw someone to the attention of immigration 
 control in the airport. In this case, there would be a yes or no answer at the point of departure.

Simon Hughes: Is the Minister saying that every time I am turned away at the gate, the British Government will give me the reasons within a reasonable period, and that there will be an appeal process? Where are the legislative arrangements for that? I am not aware that they exist, and I do not see them in the Bill. If that is what she is saying, that is a new and interesting policy announcement. [Interruption.] No, I am serious. That changes the nature of the game. She is saying that that is a British official decision, which one can review, challenge and appeal against in the courts. I would be grateful to know what the authority is for.

Angela Eagle: The clause gives an enabling power to create authority to travel schemes. We are just starting to consider how we can make information on the warnings index available electronically but unobtrusively at ports before people travel, so that we can check, for example, that they are not travelling on false visas. That is just a way to ensure that the controls that we apply at ports can be applied slightly in advance.
 The clause contains regulation-making powers that would enable us to do everything that the hon. Gentleman asks me to confirm in relation to appeal and redress. That is what we intend to do. We could consider UK missions abroad, or an immigration and nationality hotline. We have not reached the stage of planning precisely how we would deliver redress in those circumstances, but I assure him that it is not an arbitrary decision without redress for the individual. 
 There would be compensation for an innocent individual who somehow became the victim of a computer glitch, as there is in the case of a wrong immigration decision at a port, if that could be proved in the appeal mechanism of a court. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that the development of such technology and schemes such as the pre-boarding authority to travel give greater certainty to everyone, and it will be in everyone's interests if we can develop them appropriately. 
 I hope that I have explained to the hon. Gentleman that we do not intend to share the information on the warnings index with private companies. They will merely receive a yes or a no about an individual. That does not give the individual the right to enter the country at ports—they will still be checked and have to go through immigration control—but it provides some comfort that, according to the warnings index, the individual is not an immigration offender who has been deported and whom we do not want to return to the country, or who is travelling on falsified documents. If there is a check at immigration control, the individual can be more certain that they will pass through than if there is no check. That is for everyone's convenience.

Gregory Barker: The Minister referred to the 90 million visitors a year. How many people are on the warnings index?

Angela Eagle: The warnings index contains various entries, not all of which are people. Any known war
 criminals are on it, as are people who have been deported from this country within a set period of years, stolen passports that may be re-used and other stolen identification documents. There are hundreds of thousands of pieces of information, but they do not all relate directly to individuals. The warnings index is therefore a database that operates to flag up known difficulties about documentation or certain individuals. It is available to every immigration officer at passport control at each port of entry, and it is a way to pre-check at a more useful time.
 On the issues raised by the hon. Member for Woking, I am not a skier, but the trip must have ruined at least the first day of his holiday. I probably would have spent 24 hours recovering before I could face the slopes. The Disney train is an interesting issue. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are in regular contact with Brussels, and we have an arrangement to snap controls in place if it looks like they are needed. We do not need juxtaposed controls everywhere, but we track apparent clandestine movements carefully. If the Eurostar through Lille is targeted we can quickly impose controls in conjunction with the Brussels authorities. We have discussed that with our counterparts in the Belgian Government and we have regular meetings and working groups. 
 I shall check the ski train and the Disney train, as the hon. Gentleman has brought them to my attention, to ensure that we would be in a position operationally to respond to any sudden development of clandestine activity.

Simon Hughes: I was not aware of the exciting possibilities of the Disney and ski trains, although I am not encouraged to pursue them following the description given by the hon. Member for Woking. However, I am aware of the Lille-Brussels issue, which is in general currency. Others raised it with me when I took the Eurostar to Brussels recently, and the Minister may need to reconsider it.
 I favour British officials being outside the territory. That has been my view for a long time in relation to northern France, and it applies also to Belgium. It seems to be the right way to ensure prevention of illegal entry. 
 The Minister's answers on the other matter furthered my understanding beyond what the Government have said previously. I have no objection to decisions taken by and on behalf of the British Government. That is a better alternative to an individual visa regime, provided there are two safeguards, which I did not see in the Bill. First, the information should not become available to others outside the Government-individual relationship—the Minister assures us that there will be protection—and, secondly, there should be a proper mechanism for challenge, appeal and compensation. If both are included, that will put a different light on the matter. I am grateful for the Minister's elucidation.

Angela Eagle: I would not want the hon. Gentleman to think that we will compensate people whom we correctly prevent from entering the country. The provision is for only the small band of innocents about whom he is concerned.
 Simon Hughes: Of course, I understand. This area requires consultation with the travel industry. If the Government are to implement a technically-led refusal-to-travel system, the logical time to alert people that they will be refused is when they book international flights. One must produce basic information, including passports for visas, at that time. That would be a better way, which would prevent people from spending their money.

Angela Eagle: We absolutely agree. We will look for technological solutions to enable travel agents to have access to the information in due course—obviously it will not happen tomorrow—so that if innocent Bloggs booked a ticket and the system said no, he would not have to spend his money, while if guilty Bloggs booked a ticket, the travel agent would notify him that he was unlikely to pass immigration, so that hopefully he would do something else with his time.

Simon Hughes: This may be a great leap forward rather than a nightmare scenario. The Minister has been able to interpret and explain the Government's thinking, which is a change from what appeared to be the case. Others have been equally concerned, and I am grateful. I look forward to further elaboration and shall not oppose the clause.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 96 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 97 - Physical data: compulsory provision

Humfrey Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 302, in page 48, line 27, leave out paragraph (g).
 This is a gentle and probing amendment. The clause is extremely general. In simple terms, it says that the Secretary of State may make regulations requiring information. The devil will be in the detail when we see the regulations in due course, and I hope that we will have an opportunity to discuss them. Subsection (4) sets out what regulations under subsection (1) may do, but paragraphs (a) to (i) are extremely general. For example, paragraph (i) states that the regulations may 
''make different provision for different cases or circumstances.''
 We could hardly object to that in principle, but we would like to know what it means in practice. 
 The amendment would delete paragraph (g), which states that the regulations may 
''make provision about the use and retention of information provided (which may include provision permitting the use of information for specified purposes which do not relate to immigration)''.
 It is early days and the regulations have not been drafted, but will the Minister say what that may mean? At first glance, it is a wide power and there is a possible objection—if not today, perhaps in due course—to the use of such important and sensitive information for purposes that do not relate to immigration. Will she tell us how wide the regulations will be, and although this is an early stage, for what other purposes the information might be used? She will recognise that if there is not a fetter or bar on the extent to which the information can be disseminated or used, there may be problems ahead. 
 Simon Hughes: There are equal concerns and slight mystification among the Liberal Democrats, specifically about subsection (4)(g). Organisations have made representations to us and, I would imagine, the Government. They include Liberty, which, I should declare, has its headquarters in my constituency, and the Immigration Law Practitioners Association. We will come to other issues about the mechanism for parliamentary approval of regulations and so on, but I want the Minister to explain the key issue of why information provided by travellers for immigration control should be used for purposes that do not concern immigration control. Otherwise, I am not sure that I can sign up to it.
 We have not yet examined holistically the question of what information should move from one Department to another. The issue of transfer of information between public organisations appears more and more, especially in this Bill from clause 100 onwards. There are questions such as to whom we assent that information should be transferred when we give information voluntarily or it is taken from us compulsorily. I start from Liberty's point of view that the state should hold the minimum amount of information on me, that I should know what information is held, that I should be alerted that it is held and be able to check it, and that it should not be transferred to other people without my knowledge. 
 The Labour Government have been guilty of adding more and more powers to the state to obtain and to transfer information. This country is such a Big Brother state that I fear it is almost irrevocable, yet everything has been done on the basis of a good case made in a particular Bill on a particular day. We must be very careful to ensure that every provision that justifies more information going to the state is widely supported and seen to be acceptable. I should like the Minister to explain why this provision is necessary, but in any case the issue will return in different guises in subsequent clauses.

Rosie Winterton: I want to explain the background to our thinking on the clause. It enables the making of regulations that would require a person applying for a visa or entry clearance or for leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom to provide certain data with their application. The data that may be required extends to external characteristics, including the features of the iris; the developments in new technology provide many new ways of identifying people. We are trying to introduce automated verification of identify through those developments, which can assist UK immigration control. I emphasise that the developments are at an early stage but we envisage that the scheme will apply to certain categories of people seeking to enter or remain in the UK.
 There was an earlier discussion about some of the difficulties with regard to fraud and it is important that new technology is used to increase the detection of fraud while at the same time, another benefit of the technology is that it will increase the number of people who can be processed quickly. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle mentioned the long queues at 
 passport control; the new technology will help to alleviate such problems and make life easier for many people, especially frequent travellers, who will be able to enter the country more quickly. 
 The hon. Member for Woking referred to paragraph (i), which relates to different cases or circumstances. Flexibility is needed because circumstances may change in respect of the categories of people from whom we want the information. Questions were also asked about how the information will be collected and used, and who will know about it. The amendment would remove the reference in subsection (4)(g) to provisions on the use and retention of information, including for purposes other than immigration control. It would not limit the scope to include such provisions in regulations, as the list in subsection (4) is not exhaustive, but it would remove the reference to other purposes. 
 We believe it proper that information could be used for other purposes. The most obvious reason that springs to mind is the prevention of crime. Limiting our ability to use data would be inappropriate and not in the best interests of us all, including many vulnerable people who are used by those who participate in organised crime. That is partly why we want the ability to use information in other circumstances. 
 It may provide reassurance if I say that any exchange or use of data collected under the powers will be subject to the safeguards in the Data Protection Act 1998, and that any provision allowing the use of information other than for immigration purposes will be set out in regulations, transparent and open to parliamentary scrutiny. I re-emphasise that we are at an early stage of developing the proposals, but I hope that hon. Members accept that passing the amendment would limit the use of information for proper purposes, particularly in relation to crime.

Simon Hughes: I am afraid that I am absolutely not persuaded. If there are good reasons for using the information, such as the prevention of crime, they should be explicit in the Bill. The measure is ridiculously widely drawn—exactly the sort of provision that should not be in legislation. We have not seen the draft regulations, so we can take no comfort from them, and even though there is some protection under the Data Protection Act, the provision is unacceptably wide. Unless the Minister can provide a much better explanation and an undertaking to amend the provision by Report stage to define the limitations in the Bill, I shall have no option but to vote against it, continue to oppose it and seek to persuade the other House to remove it.

Humfrey Malins: I do not feel as strongly as the hon. Gentleman about the amendment, which I tabled, but if I beg to ask leave to withdraw it, it may be that it cannot be voted on. I understand that there will be regulations and I accept the need for them. The clause is terribly widely drawn, which is of concern to us all, but we are debating in a slight vacuum, because we do not know what the regulations will say. The purpose of the amendment is to put down a marker that we shall return to the issue with some vigour when we see the regulations. I think that we had a ministerial assurance
 that we shall have enough parliamentary time to examine these matters more carefully. That is satisfactory for today.

Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Hurst. Before the hon. Gentleman finishes winding up, I want to clarify whether, if I insist on pressing the amendment to a vote, it will be possible to have one, irrespective of his different view.

Alan Hurst: One objection to withdrawal will trigger a vote.

Humfrey Malins: We may be in a position to proceed on the basis of an objection to my withdrawal. I am pleased that I tabled the amendment. It has provided a peg for an interesting and important debate. We shall return to these matters, which require close scrutiny, later. I hope that the regulations will appear sooner rather than later. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Simon Hughes: No.
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—

Question accordingly negatived.

Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 316, in page 49, line 5, leave out from 'shall' to 'House' and insert
'not to be made unless a draft has been laid and approved by resolution of each'.
 This is a straightforward amendment, designed to change the mechanism for dealing with regulations from possible to automatic. It would guarantee Parliament that the regulations will return for scrutiny. They are important enough to justify such automatic parliamentary scrutiny.

Rosie Winterton: I am afraid that we cannot accept the amendment. It is intended that any regulations made under the powers in the clause would, for the most part, mirror the divisions contained in sections 141 to 143 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which was subject to full debate. The affirmative resolution required by the amendment is unnecessary. It remains open to discussions within parliamentary procedure.

Simon Hughes: With this sort of amendment, Ministers do not normally give in on the first round.

Angela Eagle: If at all.

Simon Hughes: They are normally forced to give in by the House of Lords.

Angela Eagle: Very democratic.

Simon Hughes: It is undemocratic only because Labour has made it so. A way forward is now clear
 and we hope that it will be predominantly democratic soon.
 I shall not detain the Committee further. By the end of our proceedings we shall have an idea of which regulations are most important, most in need of review and most requiring of automatic parliamentary scrutiny. I repeat my request to Ministers: can they ensure that drafts of all the regulations are published as soon as possible? The Minister said that she shared that view and saw that as being helpful. As we are due to finish the Committee stage next Tuesday, I hope that we can have the regulations either by the end of next week or at least more than a couple of days before Report.

Angela Eagle: I think that the hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood a move of my head and interpreted it as he wished. We certainly will not have the draft regulations written by next Tuesday. It would be wrong for him to go away with the idea that they are in detailed form and are just waiting to be published. They are not.

Simon Hughes: I would never wish to misinterpret the Minister. I would far rather that we disagreed. That is fine in terms of explanation, although not in terms of policy making. Parliament breaks up next Friday for an unusually long recess of two weeks. That is to do with the jubilee. I understand that it is also because half the Cabinet thought that the holiday week was before the jubilee weekend and the other half thought that it was afterwards and they booked their holidays accordingly. That may be entirely untrue.

Angela Eagle: They are going to Disney.

Simon Hughes: Yes, or going skiing. In any event, we have a two-week holiday. I hope that Ministers can tell us before the Committee reports on Tuesday when they expect to publish the draft regulations. I understand that they will not be ready then, although was an earlier indication that they would be available as soon as possible. We should not go to Report stage without having seen the regulations. I hope that the Ministers and their civil servants will do their utmost to ensure that we have enough time to read them, so that we can table amendments. I may ask my colleagues in the Whips Office to take the matter up with the business managers.

Rosie Winterton: It is important to emphasise that work on this area is at an early stage. It is not likely that any scheme will be proposed until next year. That is part of the difficulty in trying to work to the timetable set by the hon. Gentleman. When we know more about the scheme we will be able to proceed as he suggests.

Simon Hughes: When we come to the end of Committee stage, perhaps Ministers could drop us a line to tell us which regulations they can let us have in draft before Report, so that we can express our happiness or unhappiness, and which will be available in draft form before the Bill leaves the Commons. I understand what the Parliamentary Secretary just said. Of course, some regulations are a long way down the track, but it would be helpful to know which are imminent. As the hon. Member for Woking said, we need to see some of them before we can form a
 judgment about what is proposed. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 317, in page 49, line 16, leave out 'includes, in particular' and insert 'are'.

Alan Hurst: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 319, in clause 99, page 49, line 42, leave out 'includes in particular,' and insert 'are'.

Simon Hughes: These are amendments to clauses 97 and 99 and pick up the point that the Minister has just made about the clause as a whole. The new technology of eye identification gives more accurate personal recognition than fingerprinting. That is fine and good—all credit to the scientist and others who devised it—but our amendments seek to ensure that we are specific rather than general. The clause states that
'' 'external physical characteristics' includes, in particular, features of the iris or any other part of the eye''.
 In a straight reading of English, that could mean any external physical characteristics. We know about identification using the features of the iris or any other part of the eye; the amendment is a probing one to discover whether the Government have any other plan up their sleeve. 
 One could contemplate the amusing as well as the serious side to the issue: not everyone would readily assent to immigration officers and others taking an interest in external physical characteristics in general. We need to be specific about what we are talking about. We are used to fingerprints, and we are willing to sign up to iris identification, which seems based on good scientific analysis. The Government should tell us if they have other means of identification in mind, but if they have nothing more in mind than fingerprints or eye characteristics, we suggest that the provision is limited to those specific examples and a portmanteau phrase is not slipped through.

Rosie Winterton: I think that I can be a bit helpful. As I have stressed, the development of the proposals is at an early stage; I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that technology is constantly and rapidly changing. We have not, therefore, taken firm decisions about whether the data should take the form of an iris scan, a facial image or fingerprints. New developments may appear that indicate that one form is more accurate than another, so I cannot accept the amendment. However, I reassure the hon. Gentleman that when the regulations are issued, they will specify the type of data that will be collected. It would be inappropriate to define that in primary legislation.

Simon Hughes: I am happy that the Government are committed to ensuring that specific information is included in legislation, even if it is secondary legislation. I will take advice on whether people outside the House who have an interest think that that is sufficient, but I understand the argument. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Simon Hughes: I wish to make two brief points. First, the clause is important, for the reasons that I stated earlier. It allows for information to be compulsorily obtained. It would be helpful if the Minister circulated to hon. Members—I do not ask her to read out the information now—details about the current protections under all the data protection legislation against information collected here being passed on without authority.
 I welcome subsection (5), which specifies that regulations must provide for the destruction of information obtained or recorded and 
''require the destruction of information at the end of the period of ten years beginning with the day on which it is obtained or recorded''.
 That is, one can ask for the record of one's fingerprints or eyes to be destroyed 10 years later so that there is not a permanent Big Brother file. My question is, if I ask for the file containing my fingerprints or the image of my iris, and someone refuses to provide that data, what can I, the citizen, do? What is my remedy, and what are my guarantees? If someone refuses, what offence do they commit and can they be punished? I am keen to know whether the citizen can enforce the rights given in legislation.

Rosie Winterton: I do not have the specific answer. The protection under existing legislation on access to information would apply, at the same time as the balance against data protection. The hon. Gentleman may be talking about someone residing elsewhere, so I will need to check the details. I am happy to write to him.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 97 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 98 - Physical data: voluntary provision

Humfrey Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 303, in page 49, line 32, leave out paragraph (c).
 Under clause 98 the Secretary of State can operate a scheme enabling people voluntarily to provide data with a view to assisting and accelerating their entry to the UK. We are looking at a two-tier system, which may operate unfairly. My probing amendment relates to the Secretary of State's ability under subsection (2)(c) to charge for participation in a scheme. Would that amount to an additional charge to visa applicants who already pay for their entry clearance? Is that right or fair? Surely the Government should bear the extra cost. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain the thinking behind the proposed charge. I hope that her reply will not disappoint me.

Simon Hughes: We have similar concerns. I pay tribute to the Government for reducing charges for visa appeals. It is important that we do not impose double penalties that become double financial hurdles to providing the necessary information to enter the UK. We must get these matters in proportion. If we are honest about having a system that encourages
 people to put their case, they should not be discouraged for financial reasons.

Angela Watkinson: The clause relates to voluntary provision of information about external physical characteristics. How will Muslim women who wear full burqa be affected if for cultural reasons they are not permitted to give as much information as they may wish?

Rosie Winterton: The clause is intended to help frequent travellers. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle talked about how quickly certain categories of people move through immigration control, and how there appear to be long queues elsewhere. I stress that the provision of information is entirely voluntary. The scheme is almost a service for frequent travellers who want the benefits of being processed more quickly. In the circumstances, it is reasonable to charge for that, especially when we compare the costs that a frequent traveller may face. I stress that there is no extra charge for anyone who does not wish to participate. The scheme is just a mechanism for ensuring that we can help frequent travellers who are not considered to be a risk to move quickly through the system.

Humfrey Malins: This is a probing amendment, but I hoped that the Minister could give us a little more detail about the potential costs and the number of people who might be affected. Will there be a graduated scheme of costs? One might be impecunious, but full of merit.

Rosie Winterton: On the question about a sliding scale, there is a flat rate charge for people who apply for visas. I do not recall the hon. Gentleman making a point about that. We want to provide a scheme that assists people to make their way through the process when entering the UK. We will consider the details of the scheme as we develop the ideas, which are at an early stage because of the difficulties of considering the implications of new technology. I cannot provide information about cost at the moment, but we want to ensure that people can access the scheme, which will assist them in the process of entering the country.

Humfrey Malins: We shall watch carefully what evolves. There is no point in pressing the amendment to a vote now. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 98 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 99 - Data collection under

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Simon Hughes: The clause gives rise to the same questions about the future regulations and their specificity as I raised under clause 97.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 99 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Column Number: 308

Clause 100Local Authority

Local Authority

Angela Eagle: I beg to move amendment No. 293, in page 50, line 12, leave out 'or 24A(1)' and insert ', 24A(1) or 26(1)(c) or (d)'.
 The amendment adds offences under the Immigration Act 1971 to the list of offences covered by clause 100. It is an offence under section 26(1)(c) and (d) to make a false statement or present a false document to an immigration officer during an examination under the Immigration Act. The offences relate to categories of illegal entry. The clause provides the Secretary of State with the power to require local authorities on request to disclose to him information for the purposes of establishing the whereabouts of a specified individual whom he reasonably suspects has committed an immigration offence and is, or has been, resident in a local authority area. The offences include illegal entry, overstaying, working in breach and absconding from temporary admission. 
 Local authorities have always been an important source of information, but current practice in terms of co-operation with the immigration authorities varies widely because there is some ambiguity in the interpretation of the current powers, including the extent to which the Data Protection Act 1998 and the common-law duty of confidentiality inhibit disclosure. We aim to create clarity in the matter and the amendment will add to the clause the two offences that I mentioned earlier.

Simon Hughes: I do not object in principle to the amendment, but I want to make two points. First, the Minister listed a group of offences that she said were included in the provision. It would be helpful, now if possible, or later, if the full list of offences could be made available so that everyone can understand exactly what is the justification for the request. Secondly—I raise the matter now rather than on clause stand part, as it follows directly from what the Minister said—the amendment is to subsection (1) which states:
''The Secretary of State may require a local authority to supply information''.
 It does not state what information the Secretary of State may require a local authority to supply. Although we can all think of obvious things, it would be helpful for the information to be specified. 
 What sort of information does the Minister envisage would normally be sought? Would it be appropriate at a later stage to agree to an amendment that defines it more generally than the clause does? I am not trying to be overly restrictive, and the Government may say that they would rather not define it. On the other hand, there is a potential for abuse. I can think of information that might come to the knowledge of the local authority that would be entirely inappropriate. For example, information concerning a social services child care matter may indirectly be relevant to immigration matters but nothing to do with the immigration and nationality directorate. A child abuse allegation might be tied up with immigration but it might not be appropriate to be 
 able to transfer it from the local authority to the Home Office. 
 I hope for a considered reply from the Minister and an indication that we will return to the matter.

Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman should consider the offences in question: illegal entry, overstaying, working in breach and absconding from temporary admission. We will be seeking to establish information
 such as addresses from housing benefit or council tax records. He did not mention this, but I shall flag it up. The Secretary of State must reasonably suspect that an individual has committed a specific immigration offence—
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.